Obama Administration Threatens To Veto CISPA

from the in-no-uncertain-terms dept

Yesterday, the Guardian reported that the Obama administration officially opposed CISPA—but they also noted that there was no mention of the V-word. Now that's changed. The executive office just released a statement which says in no uncertain terms that they will be pushing for a veto of the bill:

Legislation should address core critical infrastructure vulnerabilities without sacrificing the fundamental values of privacy and civil liberties for our citizens, especially at a time our Nation is facing challenges to our economic well-being and national security. The Administration looks forward to continuing to engage with the Congress in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion to enact cybersecurity legislation to address these critical issues. However, for the reasons stated herein, if H.R. 3523 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

The administration's concerns mirror those of civil liberties groups, and could be (partially) addressed by some of the amendments we looked at earlier. But hopefully this clear statement from the White House provides the necessary final push to stop CISPA in its tracks and start working on a better security bill with the help of people who actually know what they're doing.

Re:

Here's a better amendment!

Let's amend the US Constitution with the following:Proposed and passed legislation must meet these 3 criteria:
1) May not be more than 2000 words.
2) Must be understandable by any literate citizen of average education level.
3) If titled, the title must clearly and accurately reflect the purpose of the bill.

Failing any of these criteria will mean the bill could not be passed into law.

Glad to see Obama taking a strong stand for our rights of privacy here.

Too many politicians think they HAVE to vote CISPA through no matter how bad the bill is. Why? Since it's just 6 months till the election, and you wouldn't want to be blamed for a cyber security attack on the US so close to an election now would you? Just voting against a bill with 'cyber information' and 'protection' in the name would cause your opponent to run attack ads saying you don't take cyber security seriously.

Re: Here's a better amendment!

I'm not so sure about the 2000 word limit. CISPA suffered from being too short. In some areas it's good to have long bills that carefully itemize and describe what they cover, instead of using broad ill-defined terms like "cybersecurity"

Re:

No to mention the stunning success of SOPA/PIPA and how ACTA and TPP are flying under the radar...
Maybe giving a large vocal group of people a reason to work together against them would be a bad idea.

Re: So let's add up the score

i think the frightening thing is that almost on a daily basis there is some fucking idiot in Congress, that hasn't got the intelligence of a moron on the subject that he is trying to introduce a Bill on, trying to introduce a Bill! why do they do it? if it's to try to achieve something, they are doing that, but it's only achieving how stupid it makes them out to be! if it's to please which ever industry that has made 'campaign contributions' to them, it's about time the contributors saw the writing on the wall and moved on. before the next ridiculous attempt is made, you would think that someone suitable would be chosen. atm, even the White House can see how ridiculous things are getting, and that's saying something!

Re:

Re: Here's a better amendment!

I have a better idea. Let's not. 2000-word limits just mean you can't pass anything that third-graders can't understand, which is stupid. Some legislation has to be more complex than that. I know that's hard for some to accept, but deal with it and move on.

Honestly I see this as a very safe move for the White House. They already know that changes are going to be made to it, so they can say "Yes, if the bill shows up on his desk we will recommend he veto it." Then after they make the changes the White House can say "We feel that the changes that have been made are acceptable and we will sign it if and when it makes it to his desk."

Re: Re: So let's add up the score

Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's a better amendment!

Better a short legible bill than some several thousand page monstrosity (see: Patriot Act) to which the Senators/Congresspersons go "TL;DR" and vote effing "YES" anyway--without knowing what is even says!!

read it carefully

The underlined sentence in the quoted text reveals the problem: "However, for the reasons stated herein, if H.R. 3523 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."

This isn't OBAMA saying he will veto it. It says his senior advisers will RECOMMEND he veto it. He can just as easily ignore them and sign it anyway. He's not making any promises, so don't get pulled in by a superficial show of support.

The people to ask (slight recap of post from another thread)

Off the top of my head (and I apologize to anybody that I should have remembered but didn't) these are the people that Congress should have in the room before they even dream of writing legislation that touches the Internet: Jacob Appelbaum, Steve Bellovin, Danah Boyd, Bill Cheswick, Ben Edelman, Dave Farber, Ed Felten, Richard Forno, Dan Gillmor, Alex Halderman, Dan Kaminsky, Valdis Kletnieks, Susan Landau, Chris Lewis, Peter Neumann, Marcus Ranum, Bruce Schneier, Chris Soghoian, Gene Spafford, Lauren Weinstein.

Re: Re: Re: Re: So let's add up the score

"Things would be no different under a GOP president"

Yea it would - they'd call it anti-pornography, or anti-terrorism (even more than what we've heard so far). It would be part of a huge marketing and talking point campaign that even 1/3 (or more) of the democrats would join in on "for the good of the nation". They'd pick some color of ribbon to tie around trees and order car magnets from China. It would be "unpatriotic" to oppose - treasonist even. They would call "anti-circumvention" technology the growth industry of the future, put Blackwater (AXE now), Haliburton, or whatever corporate chummies they had handy in charge of no bid, multi-million dollar contracts that never expire. You know the drill.

Ron Paul is a social conservative and just as likely to do the same only call it "anti-porn" and for "the good of society". It's impossible to debate faulty logic and "faith". At least this way there is a chance to argue over actual merits.

Re:

Another bill

Someone needs to introduce a bill stating that no changes to the internet should be passed into law without consulting specific sectors that are familiar with the internet - sort of a cyber consumer protection agency.

Re:

Yes, the President has threatened to veto CISPA -- in its current form. However, CISPA's primary sponsors still plan on slapping on some patches (excuse me, amendments) and to proceed towards Friday's vote.

Unfortunately, many of those amendments have their own issues. One even offers -- I kid you not -- a promise to "develop" policies and procedures that will protect individual privacy and civil liberties... after the bill is passed.

Whether or not he vetoes the legislation will depend on whether both houses have a veto-proof majority. If Congress passes the law with a veto proof majority in both houses, a veto would be a lesson in futility.

Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 25th, 2012 @ 12:58pm

"The obama adminisrration just passed a law"

The us government is supposed to be comprised of three branches; executive, legislative, judicial. One of these branches passes a bill, one of these branches signs the bill into law ..... does any of this ring a bell?

Yeah, just like he promised to veto the NDAA. Just more political posturing to score points with his base. When it comes to his desk, he'll quietly sign it over a holiday weekend with his pre-cooked excuse of why it's yet another "necessary evil" committed against the American people.